New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday issued notices to the Central Government and the Election Commission of India (ECI) in response to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the blanket ban on voting rights for undertrial prisoners in India.
The petition, filed by Sunita Sharma, a resident of Patiala, Punjab, contends that the existing restrictions under Section 62(5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, are unconstitutional and deny a fundamental democratic right to nearly 4.5 lakh undertrials currently held in jails across the country.
A bench comprising Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran acknowledged the gravity of the issue and sought formal responses from both the Centre and the Election Commission, represented through the Ministry of Law and Justice.
Petition Calls Ban Arbitrary and Unjust
Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Prashant Bhushan argued that undertrials — individuals who have been accused but not yet convicted — are being subjected to an unjustified and sweeping disenfranchisement, despite the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
Bhushan emphasized that the blanket ban imposed by Section 62(5) is not only discriminatory but also contrary to international human rights standards that uphold the right to political participation, especially in the absence of a criminal conviction.
Who Are Undertrials?
Undertrials are those awaiting the outcome of their legal proceedings and have not been convicted of any crime. Many of them are incarcerated simply because they cannot afford bail or are caught in lengthy judicial delays.
The petitioner noted that voting is a fundamental aspect of democratic engagement, and the current policy effectively strips lakhs of Indian citizens of this right — even though many are innocent or jailed for non-serious offences.
Court Weighs In
The bench took a cautious approach, stating that the matter raises important constitutional questions, particularly in the context of Article 14 (equality before the law) and Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) of the Constitution.
“Should every individual who is not convicted lose their right to vote? Can the state deny participation in the electoral process based purely on custody status?” the bench observed orally during the hearing.
